Obama’s sneaky treaties

The Hill ^ | 2/8/12 | Dick Morris

[Nachum]

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over — or seeking ratification of — five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions. Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts. Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty and democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and

[Nachum]

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/

[LucianOfSamasota]

Big time has already cut 70% of our nuke force with his SALT treaty. Things are going to get exciting as the PAX Americana ends.

[Mr. K]

That’s just silly.

Who would make a treaty that would go against the best interests of the United States????

oh wait...

[KoRn]

Doesn’t treaty ratification require 66 votes in the Senate?

[varon]

Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.

I do believe a different opinion exists HERE

[rarestia]

Doesn’t treaty ratification require 66 votes in the Senate?

From THOMAS:

In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate has responsibility for advice and consent to ratification of treaties with other nations that have been negotiated and agreed to by the Executive Branch.

But that doesn't mean anything to Obama. He won, remember?

[Parmenio]

Yes, a treaty needs 66 votes, but Obama can choose to comply with the terms of a treaty, even if it has not been ratified.

[WayneS]

Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.

While these treaties are atrocious, and any one of them would be problematic if ratified, the United States Supreme Court absolutely CAN overturn all or part of any treaty which it decides violates the United States Constitution.

Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."

[Noob1999]

Somewhere around here, I saw an old piece of parchment paper, that said something about the Senate having to ratify a treaty before it’s enforcement.

Now where did I see that? Oh, I remember, it was in Zer0’s bathroomm!

[RicocheT]

Yes, the Senate must ratify treaties. So, get the Democrats out of the majority in the Senate. Vote for freedom and our Constitution in 11/2012.

[green iguana]

No, a treaty does not require 66 votes in the senate for ratification. It requires a 2/3 affirmative vote of the senators present. There is a difference.

The senate can be in session with a 51 member quorum present. 2/3 of that is 34 votes - the bare minimum required.

Mind you, few senators would miss a vote on a treaty, assuming they knew about it.

[CitizenM]

Bump for reading and understanding later.

[Max in Utah]

Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."

Yes, and it also says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance therefore; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That last clause leaves me a bit uncertain.

[Carry_Okie]

Doesn’t treaty ratification require 66 votes in the Senate?

That would be 67, and the answer is NO. It's been done without a quorum too.

All it takes is a signature and FedGov, Inc. will start finding a way to abide by its terms, ratification or no.

[WayneS]

I am pretty sure that “...the Judges in every State...” does not include the United States Supreme Court.

[green iguana]

What treaty has been ratified with the Senate lacking a quorum?

You make a good point about the executive branch working to pass rules and regs with no regard to the ratification status of a signed treaty.

[TheOldLady]

Click the baby's bottle!
Many thanks, JoeProBono

Uh oh! This little guy is already breathing fire.
He's going to be a mean one!

Donate monthly to keep the mean dragons away

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

[1010RD]

That’s reassuring. I already can’t trust 67 Senators to do the right thing; you think I can trust 9 black robes?

[Carry_Okie]

One example is the Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, perhaps the most powerful treaty on the books when it comes to land use.

Please read the article linked above.